NFL injury rates and the 18-game season

Doc BearFeb 2, 2011 12:00 PM

Why not add two games a year to the NFL regular season schedule? It’s a fair question, since the four preseason games that teams gouge season ticket holders for are almost universally considered excessive. The owners want to keep the total games at 20, but they are strongly in favor of moving two of the preseason time-wasters into profitable, full-stadium affairs. There’s really only one problem with that.

Well, make that two problems. The first is that players are already banged up and aching as the season wears to its close. Adding two more games is forcing players who are already injured, worn down and/or hurting to put themselves in a situation that can end their careers two more times each year, and ownership has been far less exuberant about talking compensation for the players for those two extra games.

The owners need the additional revenue, and they’re being coy about how that would influence contracts. Moreover, the owners are not going to be bound to contracts that they and the player have signed for games or years that the player can’t perform in due to those injuries. As long as the owners aren’t on the hook for the money that will never be paid to the injured players as they would be in other sports, they have no particular reason not to push for the expansion of the season to 18 games. After all, who can it hurt?

Besides the players, of course. The players who are, yearly, getting bigger, stronger, faster and who hit harder. How much harder? Ask the Associated Press:

In a report released Friday called "Dangers of the Game of Football," the NFLPA says injuries increased from 3.2 to 3.7 per week per team and the share of players injured increased to 63 percent compared to a 2002-09 average of 59 percent.

The report also shows that 13 percent of all injuries required players to be placed on injured reserve this season, compared to an average of 10 percent for 2002-09. The union says that indicates the injuries are more serious than in past years.

The total number of injured players is also the highest it’s ever been, and the players aren’t getting smaller - quite the opposite. The last draft class had, for example, the largest players in history at the offensive line positions as a whole, something that I'd noted at the time. The New York Times added this article on the increase in the size of linemen. The following quote sums it up:

Forty-four years ago, when the Packers won Super Bowl I, their largest players weighed 260 pounds. As Green Bay prepares to face Pittsburgh in Super Bowl XLV, 13 players on the Packers’ active roster weigh 300 or more pounds, reflecting a trend over the past several decades in which players have become as supersized as fast-food meals.

While the linemen are getting bigger, the rest of the player positions are getting faster and stronger. That leads to an inevitable outcome, and the laws of physics are immutable. There will be more collisions at higher mass and higher speed, and the human frame is still limited. The injury rates over time will continue to rise. It’s a non-secret that most folks try to avoid dealing with, including many of the players.

The number of players on injured reserve in the 2010 season was 464. It’s the highest in the game’s history, as far as we know. So, in accordance with the above figures, that’s at least another 7.4 injuries per season, per team. With the rate of injury and the rate of severity of those injuries rising you’re essentially asking an average of one player per team to give up their careers with no future compensation. There might be an ‘injury settlement’, but right now those are also heavily weighted toward the owners. It’s a can’t-lose proposition.

Unless, of course, you’re one of the guys who won’t have a career the following season. If the owners are serious about expanding the schedule, it’s time that they showed publicly how they would expand the rosters to permit greater player rotation, to reduce overall injury rates and how they would compensate players who are too injured to play - that season, and for the life of the player’s contracts. How they will contribute to the retired players fund. How they will honor the contracts that at this point are something of a joke, an excuse to demand a certain level of performance from the players while voiding the contract at their leisure if they don’t like what they see. Or, if the player can’t walk, run, tackle or throw due to injury. The numbers cited only deal with publicly reported injuries. Teams have fudged on them ever since they were required to disclose them. Players don’t report many of their injuries for fear of losing their jobs, so the actual rates may be considerably higher.

From the same NYT article:

Various studies indicate that current N.F.L. players are at a greater risk than the general population for high blood pressure and that retired players are more prone toobesity, sleep apnea and metabolic syndrome: conditions like elevated blood pressure, insulin and cholesterol levels and excessive body fat around the waist that together heighten the risk for heart disease, stroke and diabetes. Retired linemen have been linked to higher mortality rates than the general public.

“I just can’t see how they can be healthy,” said Dr. Charles Yesalis, an epidemiologist and professor emeritus of health and human development at Penn State. “Yes, some may be 280 pounds of muscle, but then they carry 40 pounds of fat. It just overworks your heart. It puts a strain on your joints. You have the whole issue of concussive injuries.

So far, the campaign to expand the season appears to be well on its way to financial success for the ownership, who are fighting a limited market and dealing with a desire for their pie to continue to increase, a problem that Ted Bartlett put into stark clarity in his article yesterday. But their responsbilities to the players or to the public? Still no word on that.

What a surprise.

Learn to laugh at yourself. You will be ceaselessly amused. - Sri Gary Olsen

You can reach Doc at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or follow him on Twitter @alloverfatman

Doc, you hit my exact reasons for being against 18 games. Excellent read!

Posted by Joaquim Baeta on 2011-02-03 06:53:20

azdenfan

I guess I hadn&#8217t really contemplated my stated opinions from your point of view. Thank you for your enlightening observations.

Posted by warmick on 2011-02-02 23:34:24

Warmick, your lack of logic is only surmounted by your lack of humility. Good luck Doc.

Posted by azdenfan on 2011-02-02 23:18:53

No need to apologize. My responses weren&#8217t meant to be snide either.

Posted by Doc Bear on 2011-02-02 22:58:53

Look Doc, I know you are smarter than some of your retorts would indicate, so I can only attribute those to being disparaging attempts. Losing the thread must be the result of cursory reading as I expressed myself quite clearly (except for repeatedly writing lounging instead of launching:). For example, I have not âseguedâ anything along the lines you suggest. (In fact, my boxing analogy very clearly exemplifies the point I was making). I will, however, respond to some of your latest comments:

‘If the weight were just fat, wouldn’t the players be slower?’

Yes. As I said, regardless of size/strength being grossly overweight (as is the preference for linemen) will make you slower than you would otherwise be.

.

However, can you show me where the data suggests that injuries in the secondary are more common? Big hits come all over the field.

I have made no such specific claim. When you address general issues you have to speak in generalities: Greater speed equals greater impact equals likelier injuries. Common sense makes this point better than any stats will.

‘………….That should mean that cornerbacks and safeties have shorter careers, or that these lead to a predominance of such injuries ending WR and/or RB careers, and that’s just the opposite of what I find. Linemen, by the nature of their jobs, absorb the most foot-pounds of impact consistently.’

Cornerbacks and safeties deliver the blows. It is much less debilitating (generalities again) to give than to receive. Comparing WR and RB injuries to those of linemen WILL skew the stats. Unlike a lineman who goes all out on every play, besides playing decoy, a receiver is only seriously physically challenged by an opponent on half a dozen plays per game and even then only in a passive (non strength demanding) fashion.

‘As people are taller and better nourished (that’s been true in the industrialized West for centuries now)….. That’s held up over the years’.

Actually, the current young generation is the first in centuries which is not taller than their parents. As players, they may or may not be âbetterâ nourished. No doubt, they are better trained.

âThere is an assumption that you alluded to that players are reporting injuries more often. Source?â

I made no such claim. I said the league is more concerned and pays more attention towards protecting the health of the players. That will increase the number of injuries reported and acted upon.

If the rate is an unchanged 3.7 per game, then the whole increased injuries concern over a longer season has been trounced.

Whatâs been trounced? The number of injuries will increase with the number of games, and the number of players on IR will increase.

Indeed. That is why I said exactly that.

‘When you claim that this fails on so many levels…………’

I probably should not have worded it that way. That sounds confrontational and is probably at least partially why the response reads accordingly. I apologize.

Posted by warmick on 2011-02-02 22:53:08

Doc,

I would object to some of the Stats, although not the overall concern. First I think that some of the changes since the first packer super bowl in weight also correspond to free substitution which allows the fatter guys to take some time off on the bench, it also means that although the people are bigger they are playing less time, and less tired which is probably a good thing.

Obviously this is less about the difference between the two packer teams since only a few of them played both ways. But I don&#8217t think people take into account that drop in playing time, and the corresponding increase in roster size, when talking player safety.

What ticks me off is that specialization should lead to better performance but there are too many yahoos still bouncing off of guys because they don&#8217t wrap up.

I also think that the pats got dinged for not reporting enough injuries, and the entire increase may be Bill Belichik overreacting to that by putting everyone with a hangnail on the injury list.

It&#8217s also been noted several times here in the Green Bay area that one of the reasons they have 16 people on IR is because the salary cap rules are out which makes it easier to replace so it may not be an increase in the injury rate or the severity of injury but a relaxing of cap rules.

Also in recent years the teams have become more concerned about concussions so that&#8217s probably a factor too.

Even if the injury data support that there would be an increased injury rate, I don&#8217t know that the conclusion follows that you can&#8217t have an 18 game season. I would wonder about the mediating effects of better helmets, and braces that might become mandatory in an 18 game environment. i.e. Players might feel an increased risk and so take better care.

I saw the helmet to helmet of Pepper on Rodgers and that new helmet he was wearing worked great.

Thanks for the work Doc.

Posted by Fan in Exile on 2011-02-02 22:49:19

Interesting article as ever Doc.

This is the same problem that is facing rugby at the moment, the increase in the size, speed, strength and decrease in the player&#8217s body fat are leading to shorter careers and longer periods of the season without a full squad of fit players. This has been further hampered by the number of increased fixtures which puts an increasing burden on the players health.

Ultimately the players health is the most important issue but rugby, like football, is a form of entertainment and as a result of these injuries rugby is being devalued as a spectacle as teams are often short of a number of their first choice players, this weekend being a prime example.

On Friday night England will play Wales in the annual Six Nations tournament a rivalry as long and as passionate as any in sport, but the build up has been dominated by who is not playing as both sides are missing some of their key players. The passion will not be lost but as we have seen in recent tournaments the quality will probably suffer.

More games in rugby has been to the detriment of the game and although the money men seem happy now the short term decline in spectators could end up becoming a permanent decline and as a result meaning less for them. Those in the NFL should be careful and not be too hasty in wanting more as down the line it could mean less and those billion dollar franchises may well be valued slightly differently by Forbes in the future.

Posted by SteveUk on 2011-02-02 21:56:51

warmick, may I ask where you get your information? The idea that the weight gain is pure fat isn&#8217t supported by any stats that I&#8217ve seen, and I&#8217d like to know about any sources that I&#8217m missing. To wit:

If the weight were just fat, wouldn&#8217t the players be slower? Combine data shows, for example, that the offensive line players in 2010 at Combine were the largest AND heaviest in history. They were also the strongest in terms of the 225 bench and the fastest based on the 40 yard dash. Those numbers also are consistent with the pattern over the past 27 years.

Greater strength and power due to changes in training and nutrition are far more important, and contribute to greater foot-pounds of force. Over time that increases injuries. Keep in mind that repetitive impact injuries are often more of a concern than single incident injuries. I&#8217m not downplaying either - but one is more common, and that&#8217s the repetitive impact injury.

Weight issues are important in human health, and I&#8217ve never suggested otherwise - quite the opposite, I&#8217ve noted this and beat the drum about it in several columns. However, can you show me where the data suggests that injuries in the secondary are more common?

The bone rattling collisions resulting in injuries are produced by players in the secondary.

&#8216Big&#8217 hits come all over the field, in the linebacking arena, line play and in the secondary, but they do look different. Are you assuming that because the upper body hits in the secondary are often more &#8216replay-worthy&#8217 and are, in a very limited number of cases, life-threatening, that it means that they are consistently the biggest problem? I&#8217m unaware of any stats on that (but open to them). That should mean that cornerbacks and safeties have shorter careers, or that these lead to a predominance of such injuries ending WR and/or RB careers, and that&#8217s just the opposite of what I find.

Weight and power (as in the linemen) don&#8217t lend themselves to leaping through the air, but it doesn&#8217t limit the force of impact, either. The flying hits, helmet hits and clothesline hits (the second two are now illegal) are dangerous. Yet, the rate of injury grew during that first season that was true. Linemen, by the nature of their jobs, absorb the most foot-pounds of impact consistently (Timothy Gay, The Physics of Football). Linemen have a very high rate of debilitating injuries although they have a slightly lower rate of concussions than most other positions - and that&#8217s consistent with the type of power-based impacts in their own zone.

I&#8217ve gone back over summaries of Combine data dating back to the 1980&#8217s (The first true Combine was in 1984 at the NO SuperDome (Pete Williams&#8217 The Draft, page 51). As people are taller and better nourished (and McDonalds aside, that&#8217s been true in the industrialized West for centuries now) with modern training they will also be faster and stronger as well as heavier. The Combine numbers show this to be true. That&#8217s held up over the years. No measurements of body fat have been included or at least released.

There is an assumption that you alluded to that players are reporting injuries more often. Source? You get fired just as fast right now and I&#8217ve read a multitude of quotes to that effect this year.

If the rate is an unchanged 3.7 per game, then the whole increased injuries concern over a longer season has been trounced.

What&#8217s been trounced? The number of injuries will increase with the number of games, and the number of players on IR will increase. Since the NFL doesn&#8217t really have guaranteed contracts, this also means that more players will be leaving the league due to those injuries. You&#8217ve segued this into how players play harder in the playoffs and I completely lost the thread of your argument. Could you clarify for me?

The argument that the protective equipment is at fault has some merit - yes, spearing, as it was once called, isn&#8217t often seen in rugby. Teaching and requiring proper tackling technique is essential, from Pop Warner on up to the NFL. I&#8217ve talked about this several times in the past.

However, it doesn&#8217t follow at all that improving protection then means that you&#8217ll see MORE injuries, would it? Just emphasizing that an improper hit will result in an immediate penalty, over time, should bring the specific number of injuries from that behavior or technique down. That does not, however, suggest that better protection is a negative in this game nor that overall injuries will increase if it&#8217s provided. The injuries that mound up over time in other scenarios, including line play, won&#8217t directly be affected by that, though.

To be clear, I don&#8217t mind the arguments at all and I think that you bring u several good points; I appreciate that. When you claim that this fails on so many levels and that your statements somehow refute what is presented, though, how about giving me a source for some of the info? Then we can both argue it based on facts. Thanks - and much obliged.

Posted by Doc Bear on 2011-02-02 21:07:23

One thing really bothers me about the stats cited by the NFLPA: The comparison of last year to the average of the previous seven. It shows that injuries were worse than average in 2010- just like they were in three years from 2002-2009.

Why seven years? That&#8217s an extremely small sample size. Why not at least 10 years? I haven&#8217t looked at the data and I could be wrong, but my feeling is that as the sample size increases, the effect decreases. By making definitive statements based on an extremely small sample size, the NFLPA is pulling an Andrew Wakefield, though (hopefully) without the outright fraud.

However, that the NFLPA plays fast and loose with statistics to make the NFL seem more dangerous than it really is doesn&#8217t mean that the NFL isn&#8217t really dangerous. Players put their bodies in harm&#8217s way and deserve to be properly compensated when they are injured. I just wish they didn&#8217t have to insult my intelligence to make that case.

Posted by Velveeta on 2011-02-02 20:51:41

Doc, I wholeheartedly agree with your comments and essay.

Repeated trauma to muscles and tendons leads to small hemorrhages and inflammation. The recovery time is variable due to the intensity of the injury, the individual&#8217s response to that injury and how soon the tissue is restressed or re-injured. The time period allowed by scheduling has been 6-7 days for most games, but sometimes shorter for Thursday night games. The consequence is too little time for effective repair and healing which then predisposes the injured muscle or ligament to more serious damage. Over the course of a 16 game regular season and up to 4 post season games the cumulative damage leads to longer and longer recovery time and greater jeopardy for permanent impairment. This is even more true of concussive injuries. While 2 more games may seem minor, from a medical perspective it is quite troubling for the risk involved. As you have noted, one can&#8217t defy the physical laws involved in a sport defined by collisions intended to impart significant force on every play. Repetitive trauma without adequate recovery time necessarily results in scar formation and chronic inflammatory changes with lifelong consequences. We don&#8217t need more testimonials from retired players about their crippled post career lives, we need to listen to their stories and mitigate the consequences early on in their careers. Few will find lasting fame and employment opportunities from their careers, while the majority will have early joint replacements from arthritis and some will suffer the devastating loss of cognitive functioning destroying not just their own lives, but those who they love as well. I applaud the efforts being made to protect players with concussions and stress safer tackling techniques, but these will never correct the consequences of repeated trauma that is in the very core of the game. Frankly, there is a part of us that is thrilled with violence and while we really don&#8217t want to see anyone hurt, we first applaud the big hit until the player can&#8217t move or get up. Then there is silence. I&#8217m afraid silence won&#8217t help us now as the league contemplates adding 2 more games for what can only be monetary considerations. The cost will be paid in shortened careers and long term disability for a dwindling pool of elite athletes. I really like your idea of exit physicals for all players and actually think they should be done at the end of every season and for 5 years after retirement. It seems like the least we could do for players we have derived so much enjoyment watching, for it is they who put their bodies in harm&#8217s way.

Posted by Ponderosa on 2011-02-02 19:52:24

What really makes the whole argument against an 18 game season ridiculous is the fact that they are not proposing more games, —only that 2 unimportant ones will be changed to count in the standings. Yes I know. The starters say they don’t really play in two of the unimportant games so the change WOULD mean more games for them. Essentially they are saying: “We are fine with a 20 game season as long as we don’t have to play in 2 of those games.” Well, if that is their point of view, I have nothing to say except: “There are plenty of people in the US that would play a 30 games season at no pay if given the opportunity. There are also many who would not play even if the season was only half as long and the pay twice what you are getting. Only you can determine what is required by you. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. If the conditions for participating are unacceptable to you, —then don’t.”

Posted by warmick on 2011-02-02 19:42:31

I have a great deal of respect for you Doc but this argument is faulty on so many levels. The cited article compares the hundreds of linemen above 300 pounds today with what totaled only a handful 30 to 40 years ago. The added weight is not so much from getting bigger, however, as it is from getting fatter. When you carry an additional 40 to 100 pounds of lard, you will inevitably be slower and, being slower, you will not be hitting with the impact that you might otherwise generate. The âbiggerâ linemen thus result in fewer rather than more injuries.

Not that linemen are the big hitters anyway, of course. Regardless of size and strength, a lineman confronts the opponent within a few yards or even feet of the snap. As such, he just canât generate the speed and thus the momentum that result in high impact injuries. Linemenâs mission is pushing rather than hitting and, if they get the chance (on defense), tackling.

The bone rattling collisions resulting in injuries are produced by players in the secondary. We see all the time tremendous hits that often result in both players laying on the field unable to get up. These kinds of hits are often excessive way beyond that required to accomplish the outcome of the play but commentators and everybody else promotes this gratuitous violence by expressing admiration rather than disgust. When somebody runs at full speed and then lounge themselves into someone just as he is obviously crossing the sideline, it should not be applauded but rather be disparaged. It should also result in unnecessary roughness penalties and, if you truly wish to curb it, expulsion from the game.

The easy way to negate injuries of this type, of course, is by changing not the number of games but the rules. If lounging your body into an opponent was made illegal, the injury rate would drop drastically. âHittingâ should only be allowed with hands and arms stretched out (essentially pushing). This can still be done on a full run and can well flatten a player but he will typically pop right back up. Such a rule change should be favored by everybody. The players will suffer fewer injuries and the fans (except for the sadistically inclined) will appreciate it as it will facilitate the flow of the game and favor the offense somewhat which is what appeals the most to the majority of spectators.

As for your cited stats, I consider them inconclusive. There may be more reported injuries but that may well be as a result of the league being more aware and more cautionary than in the past. Where a player used to get up and try to “shake it off,” he is now more likely to get off the field to be evaluated by medical staff and, if indeed he is determined to suffer from a concussion, he has to “endure” a mandatory suspension.

One reason there just actually MAY be more injuries, of course, is because of the better and more protective equipment. Attired in helmets, pads and padding everywhere, players feel indestructible. One aspect that is frowned upon in the NFL is leading with the helmet which, in addition to injuring the opponent, carries a high risk of spinal injury to the offending culprit. I donât know how the number of spinal injuries of football players compare to that of rugby players but I do know you are not likely to see the latter lounge himself head first at somebody.

When trying to assess the impact of a longer season relative to injuries, it would be a lot more telling to compare the rate of injuries between playoff and none playoff teams than comparing injury stats from year to year. If the rate is an unchanged 3.7 per game, then the whole increased injuries concern over a longer season has been trounced. It is, of cause, true that even if weekly injuries hold steady, a longer season will result in more cumulative injuries but if that is the argument, then there is an equally strong case for shortening the season from its current level. Half as many games would result in half as many injuries.

Even if teams in the play offs do have a slightly higher injury rate than teams in the regular season, that stat should be taken with a grain of salt. Except perhaps for Cutler, players will try harder in the playoffs when everything is on the line and will thus be more prone to injuries. Compare with boxing: It used to be that a title fight was 15 rounds long but it became apparent that most injuries happened in the final rounds, so in order to negate that from happening, the length of title fights was reduced to 12 rounds. I donât know the stats but I suspect the shorter fights had little impact on the rate of serious injuries. They didnât tend to happen because the fighters were in rounds 13, 14 and 15 but because they were in the LAST rounds.

Posted by warmick on 2011-02-02 19:42:05

Thanks, tunesmith. I&#8217m actually working on an article that deals with one of the life-shortening problems in the NFL - the prescription drug problems that often begin with the teams&#8217 conduct as it relates to injury and end in addiction and even death for the players.

The attempt to mask the injuries with injections and addictive oral medications is the starting point for this problem in the league in more cases than we, the fans, should put up with. And you&#8217re right, tune - part of this is the need to start seeing these men as gladiatorial athletes who have short careers and statistically short lives, and who deserve to receive rational medical care after they leave the sport, as actual human beings, rather than just overpaid entertainers.

One partial solution is an exit physical. When a player retires from the NFL, whether by choice or circumstance, they could receive a battery of tests that would identify current healthcare issues that were football-related, including doing appropriate brain scans. We now know that undiagnosed concussions have occurred with over 70% of NFL players and that undiagnosed concussions are one of the keys to predicting medication abuse as well as cognitive issues later in life. Catching these problems early would include a blood panel to learn what medications the player has taken and/or is taking, and what problems they are going to be most prone to. It&#8217s cheaper than waiting for the problems to manifest and then trying to treat them.

Posted by Doc Bear on 2011-02-02 18:54:48

Ted&#8217s article explained the CBA/revenue side very well. It&#8217s as if there are 32 Bernie Madoffs realizing that the bubble is ending, and they&#8217re praying they get their bailout.

The injury situation is really fascinating and I&#8217m glad you&#8217re explaining some of it, Doc. I wish there were more data available. I would love to find an actual publicly accessible data source of injuries per team, broken down by starters vs backups, etc, just so we can see if a team is more or less injured than average, compared to the rest of the league.

But more importantly, it can start to illustrate the reality of how our players aren&#8217t just a bunch of rich athletes. If you compare injury and longevity data with contract data, then you can easily illustrate how this isn&#8217t so much a matter of billionaires vs millionaires. From the players perspective, it&#8217s almost more a matter of a bunch of expendable gladiators that are all entered into a lottery. Some win, but many more end up with lifetime injury conditions with not enough money to support themselves off of it.

I&#8217m concerned that in this whole process, neither side is asking for enough in the way of post-career benefits. I&#8217d be in favor of an expanded season and even drastically cut payroll to the players if it included two things:

1) A lifetime of free or almost-free health benefits upon signing your first NFL contract. These players have been playing for years for a chance at the NFL.

2) An aggressive and generous pension system that would begin vesting immediately and quickly, such that people that reach the average career length would at least be able to have a middle-class income for the rest of their lives.

Posted by tunesmith on 2011-02-02 18:20:08

One possible solution, which I have suggested on SB sites in the past, is to go to 18 games, but only allow each player to participate in 16 games. So, even Peyton Manning would have to ride the pine for two games. When Manning sits would be up to the Colts to decide, which would be a huge headache for the HC, but tough.

This would necessitate increased rosters, of course, but the player&#8217s association would like that.

Hey, it&#8217s supposed to be a team sport. Can&#8217t the Colts do without Manning for a couple games?